Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to gheezer
Re: Not quite sure how this can be interpreted as a threat...
quote:
Not quite sure how this can be interpreted as a threat...
An alternate platform for delivery of HD content, TV programs, films, and other content? Over the cable industry's pipes but not via their TV delivery mechanism? There's some interesting dynamics to play out there.... |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| The Cable Company's content deliver network is privately owned and privately maintained. The Telco has no right to use private local infrastructure.
I still don't see the threat to the MSO, what I see is an untapped revenue source. Unless the various municipalities give up the franchise fee and the MSO's are compensated for building the local content delivery infrastructure.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode  :Over the cable industry's pipes but not via their TV delivery mechanism? There's some interesting dynamics to play out there.... That irony is not lost on me either. Unless the cablecos block ports of throttle certain kinds of traffic (oh, they would never do something like that!) they may be developing a little leak in their revenue boat.
On the one hand they're trying to take the PVR out of their customer's homes, while something like this is right around the corner waiting to occupy the same functional and physical space (without the $10/mo fee) plus add far more value.
On the other hand, they've invested so much in half-assed digital delivery they can't really back down now.
Then there is the short walk from cable to other delivery mechanisms for these multipurpose devices making cable's offerings irrelevant.
Interesting, indeed...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to gheezer
quote:
The Cable Company's content deliver network is privately owned and privately maintained. The Telco has no right to use private local infrastructure.
I still don't see the threat to the MSO, what I see is an untapped revenue source. Unless the various municipalities give up the franchise fee and the MSO's are compensated for building the local content delivery infrastructure.
Are we talking about the same thing? "Cable TV" channel bundles are about to be made irrelevant by 87 content providers offering a la carte video 37 different ways from Sunday.
An XBox 3 offering HBO programs a-la carte in HD over their own pipes, bypassing their dinosaur business model, not a threat? Are you kidding? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to RadioDoc
quote:
That irony is not lost on me either. Unless the cablecos block ports of throttle certain kinds of traffic (oh, they would never do something like that!) they may be developing a little leak in their revenue boat.
With 87 different outfits soon to offer individual program downloads, that would be a lot of throttling and blocking. If they stop Xbox 360 owners from downloading HD copies of HBO shows, then they also need to blockade iTunes, Amazon, and everyone else.
The whole concept of paying $70 for 200 channels is about to be blown up, the very cornerstone of their bundling pipe-dream, and these guys are sitting around suggesting there's nothing to worry about....
The only way they'll win is to innovate and offer content nobody else can get (not going to happen). OR, hurry up and sign multi-billion dollar exclusive content distribution deals that cover entire swaths of content.
It's all going to get very messy. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
XBox doesn't OWN the pipe, that's the whole point.
Pay the MSO's the TENS to HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of private monies they've invested..and then others can have unfettered access.
No I am not kidding.
If the cost to deliver local content were small, someone OTHER than the MSO's WOULD HAVE Buit local deliver infrastructure nationwide by now.
Sure...FIOS is coming, but unless you own a bare minimum 1/4 million dollar house, it aint coming anytime soon.
Existing cable infrastructure passes over 100 million homes RIGHT NOW. And in 2 years, it will be capable of carrying 500mb/s of data and content. here's the key now, pay attention....this is impportant...IT WAS ALL BUILT WITH PRIVATE MONEY AND IS PRIVATELY OWNED.
And 2 years from now, it will STILL be privately owned, NOT subsidized by taxpayers, and NOT subject to open access laws that the TELCO's are.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | reply to RadioDoc
Name ONE ISP that PREVENTS people from downloading?
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to gheezer
quote:
XBox doesn't OWN the pipe, that's the whole point.
That is irrelevent to this discussion.
Likewise, I'm not even talking about TelcoTV. They have the same problem to face - worse, because they're not even built out yet. I think you're arguing a completely different point from what I'm discussing.
My point is that if users paying $50 for 10Mbps can still download a la carte content (just the shows they really like) from a growing number of other companies, networks, film houses at reasonable prices- it's very likely they will stop subscribing to Basic and expanded cable, eliminating a massive source of revenue.
That is a very real threat. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : The whole concept of paying $70 for 200 channels is about to be blown up, the very cornerstone of their bundling pipe-dream, and these guys are sitting around suggesting there's nothing to worry about.... I see your point, but I just don't see people giving up the 200+ channels in favor of a few favorite shows/channels. I think channel surfing, for the sake of something to do, will be with us for awhile. I could be wrong, but people have been getting the expanded lineups as those lineups have increased. How many out there just have basic (or as Comcast calls it "limited basic") cable? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to gheezer
said by gheezer :Name ONE ISP that PREVENTS people from downloading? Maybe you missed the discussions where people get letters from Comcast over using too much bandwidth. This will be no different.  |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| reply to jslik
said by jslik :said by Karl Bode : The whole concept of paying $70 for 200 channels is about to be blown up, the very cornerstone of their bundling pipe-dream, and these guys are sitting around suggesting there's nothing to worry about.... I see your point, but I just don't see people giving up the 200+ channels in favor of a few favorite shows/channels. I think channel surfing, for the sake of something to do, will be with us for awhile. I could be wrong, but people have been getting the expanded lineups as those lineups have increased. How many out there just have basic (or as Comcast calls it "limited basic") cable? I don't agree, a LOT of people would KILL for this. To be able to watch what THEY want without having to have all the other "bloat" with it. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
4 edits | reply to gheezer
said by gheezer :Name ONE ISP that PREVENTS people from downloading? Prevents? They don't have to prevent it, just slow it down to a crawl or cap it to a level which makes downloading a miserable experience.
Oh, and XBOX doesn't need to own the pipe. It can use any pipe it wants.
True HD video-on-demand from a production outfit like Vivendi Universal is going to blow the cable companies' traditional video (TV) and HSI data delivery model right out of the water. This is what Karl Bode is talking about. The delivery mechanism itself is utterly irrelevant, except from the cable MSOs standpoint. They are getting cut out of the revenue loop.
Cable is increasingly whistling past its own graveyard and if it doesn't wake up real soon will find itself planted therein.
Added: Well, lookie what the Mouse did...»Desperate Lost Housewife Downloads |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to gheezer
said by gheezer :Unless the various municipalities give up the franchise fee and the MSO's are compensated for building the local content delivery infrastructure. Just a question...
How is getting rid of the franchise fee going to help? That's passed on anyway, and is included in the cable companies' price point calculation, so if the FF went away tomorrow, prices would still be the same in short order. It happened to cable internet in the 2002/3 time frame. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs: | reply to Cheese
Well, I'm certainly not saying there isn't any market for it; I just don't think it's that huge. TV, for good or bad, still is a passive activity/device for a lot of folks, but hey, like I said, I could be wrong. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
The trend with Cable consumers for the past several years has been AWAY from plain ol TV anyways.
As the internet has matured as a technology, content delivery has been changing as well...as has the Cable company's home user's demographics changed.
At the MSO I work far, plain jane TV subscriber counts have been fairly static(even declining a wee bit), while Digital services subscriber numbers have doubled and Cable Internet subscriber counts have more than doubled in the past 3 years.
(read that as IP based content delivery)
Revenue is still climbing.
But the change in customer demographics has NOT been lost on investors and upper management.
More than anything else, this change in Demographics has been lost by HOLLYWOOD and NY City, where the OLD business model of Programming availability is being threatened by INTERNET access.
I suggest you study Yahoo's content delivery method (read that as Akimai's business model)...and just carry that a step closer to the consumer...the MSO head end or the Telco CO.
It's up to the content owners and Programming providers to change the business model. But whether it's by Cable Internet or Cable Box, Cable will still be a player.
But to what extent, that remains to be seen.
still....the "Franchise Fee" model is probably doomed by IP based content delivery...I think we agree with that.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jslik
said by jslik : I just don't see people giving up the 200+ channels in favor of a few favorite shows/channels. My wife and I watch a total of 14 channels out of hundreds available on cable. I would be ecstatic if I could just program a PVR to fetch the programs I wanted to watch from each provider via the Internet, store them on it's hard disk ready for me to watch when I am ready to watch them. Right now Tivo does a damn good job of approximating that system, and it's only a matter of time before the program suppliers themselves start offering their product directly. I can envision even broadcast TV setting up a system where you can catch yesterday's episode of (whatever) via download or even an ATV subchannel today, since you missed it on it's "first run". They have nothing to lose. The middleman--cable TV--has everything to lose.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to gheezer
quote:
As the internet has matured as a technology, content delivery has been changing as well...as has the Cable company's home user's demographics changed.
Time Warner this week stated that 60% of their customers still only subscribe to one service. 6% were actually signing up for the triple-play. I think the demographic change exists, but is hyped by wishful thinking execs who want everyone paying $200 for the quadruple play.
I'm starting to wonder if incumbents shouldn't just make high-quality pipes their business and get out of content distribution altogether (unlikely I know, as ads fuel all of it).
quote:
It's up to the content owners and Programming providers to change the business model. But whether it's by Cable Internet or Cable Box, Cable will still be a player.
Of course, the network is there and will be used. But above you suggested there was no threat. I'd argue that the possible dissolution of an entire content business model by dozens of hungry competitors is, well, a threat. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | reply to Karl Bode
This might screw us all over, bandwidth is going up so they can legitimize assinine increases in price for home broadband. On the other hand this may be a good check on them. They will be reluctant to raise your download and play up your upload. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
I think the MSO's have been much more adept to changing technology than the Program and content providers have.
What makes you think they won't be able to adapt to a change in content and programming delivery?
Please PLEASE convince ESPN and Discovery to STOP bundling their packages. THEN you WILL have your A-LA-Carte delivery.
Even the MSO's would like this.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
What makes you think they won't be able to adapt to a change in content and programming delivery?
Certainly is possible, but being massive and frequently stubborn outfits staffed with old-schoolers, I imagine true pricing and content innovation will come slowly and possibly too late.
Part of the downside of being in a lumbering, stumbling monopoly or duopoly where your systems aren't constantly competitively battle tested (see, RIAA).
Usually the first reaction to emerging competitive threats (at least from the massive companies) isn't to innovate, it's to clamp down on everything. Lock down content, bring out lawyers, sue competitors, strike huge restrictive content agreements.... |
|
